That was why he used to be vulnerable to counter attack from Nalbandian.

Click to expand...

He used to be vulnerable to many players in those days of various different playing styles, Hewitt, Henman, older Agassi etc.

It had mostly to due with his poor mental strength, fitness, shot selection etc.

Sure, Nalbandian continued to trouble him after that indoors but Nalbandian when playing well troubles everyone more indoors (not just Fed) and Fed has a decent records against him indoors as well so...

You'd see serve fests and 1/2 shot rallies and no one other than a handful of TW posters wants to see that.
I said that in another thread but medium paced is the way to go: give equal opportunity to offense and defense. Most entertaining tennis guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Oh, the residend expert, who doesn't play tennis, knows what is best for the game.

Djokovic's net game, slice and overheads plain suck for a top-10 player. He does few things well, but does them very well. Putting the ball away is not one of them.

Click to expand...

1)His net game is ok nothing more nothing less
2)His slice is still weak compared to nadal, fed and espescially murray
3)His overheads are an embarrasment
4)He can put the ball with winners from either side and stretch his opponents to the limit with extreme angles and change direction of a rally at will

It was still all-around baseline bashing, just more offensive in nature.

They may have slowed the conditions more since then but it's a moot point, variety of different match-ups/surfaces was already gone (not just due to slowing down of the conditions but that is one of the main reasons).

To tennis hands: Yes actually Fed is a "mug" on slow surfaces currently. That's why he didn't make a single final on red clay this year and why his favorite master is Cincy (fastest surface on the tour). I don't know about my expertise but yours doesn't seem all that great to be honest, no offense.

To tennis hands: Yes actually Fed is a "mug" on slow surfaces currently. That's why he didn't make a single final on red clay this year and why his favorite master is Cincy (fastest surface on the tour). I don't know about my expertise but yours doesn't seem all that great to be honest, no offense.

Fed is right!! Bring back CARPET!! for gods sake! it used to be such a pleasure to watch! 40 something yr old sampras would still be owning grinders like djokovic and nadal and pushers like Murray on carpet. Bring it back! im sick and tired of watching the same long rallies over and over again

That's why he didn't make a single final on red clay this year and why his favorite master is Cincy (fastest surface on the tour). I don't know about my expertise but yours doesn't seem all that great to be honest, no offense.

Yes carpet needs to be brought back. A more cushioned carpet surface is fast but not a 90s style ice rink or anything, and is safer for players than thinner carpet or hard courts.

There need to be 2 slams on slow surfaces, and 2 slams on fast ones, that reward aggressive baseline play and shotmaking. There is nothing wrong with baseline grinding but it shouldn't be the norm on every surface.

Really there is something wrong when two out of the 4 slams are played on slow hard courts. I would even prefer a few green clay tournaments instead of so many slow hard court ones.

Also importantly, a fairer balance of faster surfaces with more winners, shorter points and less grinding and physical wars of attrition, is beneficial for the players' health in the long-run. That should be the main priority right, the health of the entertainers who are putting on the show for us all.

Surfaces are perfect the way they are. Funny how every time Fed loses, the surface is at fault. How about: the player is at fault? (Revolutionary concept, I know)
If Fed wants to be a top player, he has to be able to play on all surfaces. No excuses.

Federer is 100% right, but the timing makes it look like he's just in it for himself. He's not. He's won and done it all. But for the game of tennis, it'll be important to KEEP REWARDING AN OFFENSIVE PLAY.

Surfaces are perfect the way they are. Funny how every time Fed loses, the surface is at fault. How about: the player is at fault? (Revolutionary concept, I know)
If Fed wants to be a top player, he has to be able to play on all surfaces. No excuses.

Click to expand...

You make that up. He nowhere blames the surface for the loss. However, just compare this surface to the one in 2006 and 07 in Shanghai and tell me that it's the same. The only reason you think the surfaces are fine is because it suits your buddy. Just imagine in 5 years when both are retired. Do we only want defensive tennis with zero reward for offensive plays? No we don't. And there's n historical argument to back up that the surfaces are fine. They've never been this way and never should be. I am already over Fed's loss and I can actually cope with slow surfaces as long as Roger plays. The problem lies AFTER Roger. When Roger's retired. Who'll come to the net? The guy chasing down a dropshot to get passed that's who, and nobody else.

You make that up. He nowhere blames the surface for the loss. However, just compare this surface to the one in 2006 and 07 in Shanghai and tell me that it's the same. The only reason you think the surfaces are fine is because it suits your buddy. Just imagine in 5 years when both are retired. Do we only want defensive tennis with zero reward for offensive plays? No we don't. And there's n historical argument to back up that the surfaces are fine. They've never been this way and never should be. I am already over Fed's loss and I can actually cope with slow surfaces as long as Roger plays. The problem lies AFTER Roger. When Roger's retired. Who'll come to the net? The guy chasing down a dropshot to get passed that's who, and nobody else.

Click to expand...

I don't like big servers or fast surfaces so I'm probably the wrong person to ask for support about the issue. I feel like a lot of hard courts are currently medium paced which I like because it allows a balance of offense and defense. Clay and grass are natural surfaces with distinct characteristics and I wouldn't want to change them either. The only change I'm lobbying for is to keep European clay red. Other than that, I love the matches the way they are today and do I want to favor serve fest galore? Hell no. That is exactly the kind of tennis I don't like to see. Once or twice a year is more than enough for me. (I do not understand the net complaint either. I just watched a final where both players went to net regularly. I don't think net play is gonna get extinct. Serve and volley maybe but not net play in general)

Surfaces are perfect the way they are. Funny how every time Fed loses, the surface is at fault. How about: the player is at fault? (Revolutionary concept, I know)
If Fed wants to be a top player, he has to be able to play on all surfaces. No excuses.

Click to expand...

Fed is 100% right and you know it. He even said the surface at the WTF is fine as it is, no excuses. And you never heard him talking about speeding up claycourts. He just wants to see some more variety and some faster courts and I believe a lot of tennisfans agree with him.

I don't even think Fed would be the main beneficiary of faster courts. He dominated the medium/medium-fast courts for years and the surface homogeneity seemed to have helped him win 17 grand slams.

Fed is 100% right and you know it. He even said the surface at the WTF is fine as it is, no excuses. And you never heard him talking about speeding up claycourts. He just wants to see some more variety and some faster courts and I believe a lot of tennisfans agree with him.

I don't even think Fed would be the main beneficiary of faster courts. He dominated the medium/medium-fast courts for years and the surface homogeneity seemed to have helped him win 17 grand slams.

Click to expand...

Of course Fed would be the beneficiary. Reason given: variety. Real reason: to whip Djoko's ass like Cincy. Fed could play on all surfaces in the past, now it's becoming more and more difficult (age and all). Which is why he's asking for more fast ASAP. And it's funny because a few months ago, he was criticizing Rafa/Djoko for badmouthing Madrid's surface and was waxing lyrical about the importance for players to adjust to anything that was presented to them. So, here you go Fed: adjust to current surfaces and don't moan about the speed. Take your own advice. It can only be the wisest.

The problem with the current courts/surface is that very little adjusting is required, it's far easier for all of the top players to play the same way on every surface and still post strong results across all the big tournaments.

A better balance of slow/fast surfaces (I don't think anyone here is saying that all courts should be sped up, just some of them), would force the players to adjust their games more to differing surfaces, and that would be better, more equitable and more fun to see them getting tested more.

Federer to his credit has talked about he has benefited from the modern day surface homogenisation, along with Nadal:

''Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself.''

Of course Fed would be the beneficiary. Reason given: variety. Real reason: to whip Djoko's ass like Cincy. Fed could play on all surfaces in the past, now it's becoming more and more difficult (age and all). Which is why he's asking for more fast ASAP. And it's funny because a few months ago, he was criticizing Rafa/Djoko for badmouthing Madrid's surface and was waxing lyrical about the importance for players to adjust to anything that was presented to them. So, here you go Fed: adjust to current surfaces and don't moan about the speed. Take your own advice. It can only be the wisest.

Click to expand...

LOL. Hypocrisy X 1000

And there is a difference between his general preference how the game should develop and to threaten to boycott event, because someone cannot compete on it.

How old are you? You cannot seem to comprehend context properly. And I really mean it.

Players have to adjust their game constantly. Miami doesn't play like IW which doesn't play like Cincy which doesn't play like Paris indoor and plays even less like clay which doesn't play like grass at all. I'm sorry but the only time when the surfaces become similar all of a sudden is when Fed loses.

Players have to adjust their game constantly. Miami doesn't play like IW which doesn't play like Cincy which doesn't play like Paris indoor and plays even less like clay which doesn't play like grass at all. I'm sorry but the only time when the surfaces become similar all of a sudden is when Fed loses.

Click to expand...

So, you didn't notice anything unusual with the traditional speed of the surfaces in the last, say, 10 years?

Oh wait, you started following tennis when Nadal started playing. Everything makes sense now.

No faster clay, slower grass, slower indoor courts and greater uniformity in the speed of hard courts (the Australian Open and US Open surfaces are more similar to each other now than they have ever been since I started following tennis). Players don't have adjust anywhere near as much nowadays as they did in the past.

The surfaces were adjusted to protect the top players and make it easier for them to reach the latter stages of almost every tournament they participate it, as they are the names that the casual fans want to see after all.

Federer complained about the surfaces after he won the 2005 US Open and was completely dominating men's tennis. Nadal also complained about there being too much hard court tennis, just after he won the 2009 Australian Open and was completely dominating the sport as well.

Players have to adjust their game constantly. Miami doesn't play like IW which doesn't play like Cincy which doesn't play like Paris indoor and plays even less like clay which doesn't play like grass at all. I'm sorry but the only time when the surfaces become similar all of a sudden is when Fed loses.

Lol Fed getting desperate. Not gonna enjoy AO much either Fed, are you? :twisted:
In Madrid, he was raving about how he could adjust to any surface so well and how lacking other players were who couldn't. Look how he's changing his mind now. Players should have total flexibility to adjust to any surface as long as they're fast. Sure, Fed, sure. I am quite enjoying this

Click to expand...

Lol there's no need to adjust when every surface has the same speed today. And that's exactly the point.

I agree that Federer's comment isn't too timely but he's 100 % right. He's still big enough to do something about it.

Players have to adjust their game constantly. Miami doesn't play like IW which doesn't play like Cincy which doesn't play like Paris indoor and plays even less like clay which doesn't play like grass at all. I'm sorry but the only time when the surfaces become similar all of a sudden is when Fed loses.

Click to expand...

Give me 1 other example when Federer whined that he lost because of the surface. He's got balls to take a loss like a man unlike Nadal who cries about 8 months of the season (hard courts) just so he could win more....like the surfaces aren't slow enough for him lol

You'd see serve fests and 1/2 shot rallies and no one other than a handful of TW posters wants to see that.
I said that in another thread but medium paced is the way to go: give equal opportunity to offense and defense. Most entertaining tennis guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Why not have 60% of medium paced courts, 20% of extremely slow and fast ones?

On those "medium paced" hard courts defensive players will still have an advantage just because the majority of players on tour are grinders these days. It just won't make any sense. We need 2-3 big tournaments where you can attack the net freely, serve big when needed to, fire a winner in the middle of a rally (like you used to even 5-6 years ago) instead of hitting 10 great shots to win a point.

Give me 1 other example when Federer whined that he lost because of the surface. He's got balls to take a loss like a man unlike Nadal who cries about 8 months of the season (hard courts) just so he could win more....like the surfaces aren't slow enough for him lol

Click to expand...

TROLLOLOL.

Nadal complains that there are too many HC events because he thinks about what they do to him in the long run and it has been long established that hard court is the toughest surface for the body of a tennis player.

I don't remember Nadal saying anything about the SPEED of these hardcourts, just that there are too many of them. Nadal was won both HC slams, 5 HC MS, won Olympics on HC, made WTF final once and has made it to many other HC finals in his career so he isn't woefully incompetent on this surface but pounding his knees on asphalt for most of the year isn't great for him.

People here like to talk s**t about the clay season(probably because of Nadal's domination) but the clay season has a good layout, it's around 3 months and it doesn't overstay its welcome. Once RG finishes, we give way to grass and WB but here's the problem, one of the many of the tour: there is almost no grass season. Grass season is basically WB and one of its warm-ups. That's it. No grass masters, no real build up for WB.

And after that, from August to April we have ONLY HC for big tourneys. That's a huge amount of time and it's no wonder that many people tune out for the fall series(after USO) because the tour becomes generic HC after generic HC until WTF rolls around and something more special happens. Even if you make half of the HC tourneys in this period faster(to facilitate shorter points), that's still a lot of time where players continually pound their bodies on the asphalt.

People should be pushing for more grass and less HC. Clay is fine as it is.

Nadal complains that there are too many HC events because he thinks about what they do to him in the long run and it has been long established that hard court is the toughest surface for the body of a tennis player.

I don't remember Nadal saying anything about the SPEED of these hardcourts, just that there are too many of them. Nadal was won both HC slams, 5 HC MS, won Olympics on HC, made WTF final once and has made it to many other HC finals in his career so he isn't woefully incompetent on this surface but pounding his knees on asphalt for most of the year isn't great for him.

People here like to talk s**t about the clay season(probably because of Nadal's domination) but the clay season has a good layout, it's around 3 months and it doesn't overstay its welcome. Once RG finishes, we give way to grass and WB but here's the problem, one of the many of the tour: there is almost no grass season. Grass season is basically WB and one of its warm-ups. That's it. No grass masters, no real build up for WB.

And after that, from August to April we have ONLY HC for big tourneys. That's a huge amount of time and it's no wonder that many people tune out for the fall series(after USO) because the tour becomes generic HC after generic HC until WTF rolls around and something more special happens. Even if you make half of the HC tourneys in this period faster(to facilitate shorter points), that's still a lot of time where players continually pound their bodies on the asphalt.

People should be pushing for more grass and less HC. Clay is fine as it is.

Click to expand...

Gooby, please. Nadal knew exactly what he was getting into when he started playing tennis. Hard courts have been the dominant surface for years now. Maybe Rafa expected the tour to be more clay-packed later on in his career and now, since this isn't the case, he's started to complain? Besides, I don't see any other player whine about the HC season being too long. It's only his fault he can't adapt properly.

I agree with one thing, though. There should be more grass tournaments, one at Masters level at least. If it's at the cost of hard courts, then be it. It won't change the fact that hard court will remain the main surface on tour.

Nadal complains that there are too many HC events because he thinks about what they do to him in the long run and it has been long established that hard court is the toughest surface for the body of a tennis player.

People here like to talk s**t

Click to expand...

Who established and based on what evidence????

feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom and your extensive investigation on this subject!!!!!!

people do like to talk s**t.. you should know sice you are the best at that!

Given that he's world number 2, was number 1 for a few months this year, won 3 masters series titles, Wimbledon, and had very consistent results all year, I'd say that retirement is the last thing on his mind.

He could easily have won the match today if he'd served better at the crucial moments. I expect he'll be disappointed and angry with himself for not winning the match.

Don't expect Federer to go anywhere for a good while yet.

Click to expand...

Fed will not be angry. He will be disappointed but understands things are cyclical. Sometimes he will be perfect, sometimes not. He has been playing the game long enough to learn to let things go. I agree with 'different speed surface' thing. It makes the best players the best players because the play the same on all surfaces. It can get a little tedious at times as all the surfaces play pretty much the same.

I agree with one thing, though. There should be more grass tournaments, one at Masters level at least. If it's at the cost of hard courts, then be it. It won't change the fact that hard court will remain the main surface on tour.

Click to expand...

And you think this is normal? Just because HC is cheap? Yes, it's cheap and it's also one of the reasons why players are retiring at a younger age than past players, their bodies wear out earlier on(yes, tennis is more physical nowadays but it doesn't help that 2/3 times on tour you are starting and stopping on asphalt). The guys that didn't catch the HC revolution in full swing played tennis well into their 30's and that was at least partially because natural surfaces were so prevalent on tour.

And I think that Davydenko and Hewitt(both 31) have one-two more years on tour before they pack it in.

It seems nowadays you need to be some sort of freak to even reach 35 years of age and still be on tour. I'm not saying that HC is surely to blame for this but it's a weird coincidence that once this surface(that is toughest on the body) became the most common on tour, the retirement age for most top guys started to become early 30's instead of late 30's-early 40's like in the past. And before you say that it is because of slow HC that grinds them down earlier on, know that 90's had PLENTY of fast surfaces(carpet anyone?) and yet almost all the famous players from that decade retired in their early 30's.

Personally, I think that more grass instead of HC, coupled with the existent clay season will prolong overall player longevity. HC should be at most 40% of the tour instead of the 65-70% it has today.